Barratry battle is pitting lawyer against lawyer

By John MacCormack :
April 3, 2013
: Updated: April 3, 2013 11:11pm

With an end-of-year trial date approaching, the gloves are off and knuckles are getting bloodied among the high-profile lawyers bashing each other in complex barratry litigation in a San Antonio district court.

Personal injury lawyer Alexander Begum of Brownsville, the lead defendant, is being accused by five different plaintiffs, including an ex-employee, in two pending lawsuits, of improperly soliciting clients. Such action is known as barratry.

The lawsuits claim his mother-in-law is his main solicitor.

Begum declined to be interviewed, but in his deposition termed the allegations fantasy.

Among his attorneys is Tim Maloney, who a few years ago spoke out forcefully against barratry, calling lawyers who practice it “termites” and “a plague on system.”

Maloney said he's not representing Begum, a family friend, in the barratry part of the litigation, which also includes a claim of wrongful dismissal.

In a strange twist, plaintiff's lawyer Marynell Maloney, who represents the various people suing Begum, is Tim Maloney's former sister-in-law, although both played down the awkward circumstance.

“Obviously it's kind of bizarre having Marynell on the other side, but it's another lawsuit. I just think the allegations aren't there,” he said.

And just when it seemed things could get more complicated, Marynell Maloney was recently sued in both Bexar and Cameron counties.

In the first suit, filed by Carl Kolb, she is accused of committing barratry by soliciting an ex-Begum client in San Antonio. In the second, she is accused of defaming Begum, while her lead client, Debbie Suarez, is called a liar and a cheat.

“We're fascinated because of the unusual timing. We expected this kind of retaliation,” said Marynell Maloney, adding that the accusations are false.

Begum, who in recent years has grabbed a big slice of the personal injury cases in San Antonio, was twice before involved in barratry litigation, once as a defendant in a case filed by another ex-employee. That case was dismissed.

In a written statement, his lawyer, Michael Cowen, predicted the current cases will fall apart.

“I expect that, at the end of the day, all of the claims brought by Marynell Maloney will also be dismissed,” Cowen wrote.

Besides Suarez, four other people are suing Begum for barratry, claiming his representatives improperly sought them out as clients.

To contradict this, Cowen provided copies of forms, apparently signed at the time the Begum firm was retained by the four, in which they assert they were not solicited.

“Thus, even though these former clients were not solicited and filled out and signed forms acknowledging they were not solicited, they have filed a lawsuit,” he noted.

And, Cowen said, the litigation in Bexar County is being driven by Begum's competitors, including Marynell Maloney, in the crowded San Antonio market.

The battle unfolds

By law, lawyers or their representatives are not allowed to solicit potential clients. And although barratry is a crime, it has a long and rich history in South Texas.

Until recently it was almost risk free. Few lawyers were prosecuted and fewer still were convicted.

The potential consequences ratcheted up two years ago when legislators made it a civil cause of action, allowing victims of barratry to file lawsuits against lawyers for monetary damages.

While conflict among lawyers was predictable, few could have foreseen the battle royal now unfolding in San Antonio.

The first shots were fired four years ago when Alex Garza, a client of Begum's, filed suit in Bexar County against San Antonio Spine and Rehabilitation Clinic, claiming he was shortchanged in the settlement and also tricked into signing various documents, including retaining Begum's firm.

The Begum firm had avoided being named in the lawsuit, filed by James Shaw, because it had dropped its claim for a share of the insurance settlement before the suit was filed.

Interviewed at the time, Begum said he had no idea how Garza found his firm. He denied soliciting clients and also denied any relationship with the chiropractic clinic that had treated Garza.

Begum later filed a defamation suit in Cameron County, claiming Garza and his lawyer Shaw had “concocted a false story” to damage Begum's business. Begum also accused Shaw of committing barratry, charges he denied.

The defamation suit was settled quietly.

The next salvo came in 2010, when John Masten, a lawyer in Shaw's office, sued Begum on behalf of Dawn Garza, a Begum legal assistant who said she was fired after questioning the firm's improper use of solicitors.

That suit collapsed when, according to Masten, he no longer could find his client.

The next suit involving Begum came last year, when Suarez, a Begum legal assistant in his San Antonio office, claimed she was fired for refusing to participate in the firm's barratry scheme.

In her suit, Suarez says she complained about it to both Begum and firm lawyer David Adkisson, another defendant in the suit.

“Mr. Begum acknowledged that the solicitations were improper, and he assured Ms. Suarez that the solicitations would stop,” reads the suit.

But, according to the suit, Suarez later was ordered by Adkisson to go to a chiropractic clinic to sign up an injured person as a client using the ruse of being an insurance agent or an investigator.

“Ms. Suarez knew that what Mr. Adkisson was instructing (her) to do was unethical, and amounted to barratry and fraud,” reads the suit.

Suarez claims she was fired by Begum after she sent him and Adkisson an e-mail complaining about being asked to do something unethical. It remains to be seen if that allegedly damning email will show up in discovery.

In their pleadings, Begum and Adkisson dismiss the allegations as being “groundless, baseless, unsupported by law or fact, and are brought solely for harassment and retaliation.”

Tangle of cases

In a recent blow to Suarez, a portion of her suit was tossed out when the judge decided she lacked standing to make the barratry charge, leaving only her claim of being fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.

“They threw out the claim of conspiracy to commit barratry,” said Tim Maloney, who predicted the remaining claims will soon follow, even if his former sister-in-law begged to differ.

“The court said obviously she has her wrongful termination cause of action for refusing to engage in the illegal act of barratry,” said Marynell Maloney.

And, she said, with the additional plaintiffs, “The case gets only stronger.”

Since the Suarez suit was filed, Brian Oliver, Carrolyn Riley and Domingo Sanchez have been added as plaintiffs. All are accident victims making similar claims of improper solicitation against the Begum firm.

In a separate suit, also filed by Marynell Maloney against Begum and Adkisson, Bennie and Patricia Gonzales, told a similar story, beginning with a call from an unknown female after an auto accident in 2009.

The caller promised to get medical help and legal representation, the suit claims, leading them to retain the Begum firm.

“It was not until they recently saw some commercials on television that Mr. and Mrs. Gonzales learned that the way they had been contacted was improper and could be considered solicitation,” reads the suit.

The Suarez suit could go to trial as early as November.

Marynell Maloney said she has nothing to fear from the two suits filed against her.

“It's fiction, but it's more than that. It's an obvious desperate attempt and I think it speaks to the importance of what we're trying to do,” she said.